1. A criminal proceeding initiated against a spouse for alleged abduction and sexual offences, despite the subsequent marriage and voluntary cohabitation of the parties. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 357
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ,
Ayyub Malik And Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand And Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1480 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14077 of 2025)
Decided On : 19-03-2026
Important Points
Post-marriage relationships can negate criminal charges related to elopement or sexual offenses, recognizing the abuse of legal process in continuation of proceedings against married couples.
Subject
Criminal Law - Marriage and Domestic Relations
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 368, 376(2)(d) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(8) and 6 - appellant and respondent's daughter married after alleged offenses, leading to dismissal of application to quash proceedings - The marriage occurred prior to the FIR, and time has elapsed since with the couple now living together. (Paras 2, 3.2, 5.3, 6).
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - The continuation of criminal proceedings against the husband, post-marriage to the alleged victim, constitutes an abuse of legal process. (Paras 6 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Appellants, husband and wife, appealed against High Court dismissal of a quashing plea for charges from FIR of abduction and sexual offenses. The complainant is the father of the wife.
Issues: Whether the marriage exemption applies under the allegations of minor abduction and whether continued prosecution is warranted post-marriage.
Findings of Court:
The criminal case against the husband was quashed as it abused the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that marriage post-offense significantly alters the legal situation, favoring dismissal of criminal proceedings.
Result: Appeal allowed; charges quashed.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - The continuation of criminal proceedings against the husband, post-marriage to the alleged victim, constitutes an abuse of legal process. (Paras 6 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Appellants, husband and wife, appealed against High Court dismissal of a quashing plea for charges from FIR of abduction and sexual offenses. The complainant is the father of the wife.
Issues: Whether the marriage exemption applies under the allegations of minor abduction and whether continued prosecution is warranted post-marriage.
Findings of Court:
The criminal case against the husband was quashed as it abused the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that marriage post-offense significantly alters the legal situation, favoring dismissal of criminal proceedings.
Result: Appeal allowed; charges quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Abhishek Shrivastav, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Mr. Ritik Pandey, Adv. Mr. Varun Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Sachin Kumar Verma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Abhishek Shrivastav, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Mr. Ritik Pandey, Adv. Mr. Varun Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Sachin Kumar Verma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR
Table of Contents
2. The accused seek quashment citing their valid marital relationship and cohabitation, while the state argues that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence. (Para 4 )
3. The court observed that continuing criminal proceedings against a couple living in a stable, consensual marital union constitutes an abuse of the process of law. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Subsequent voluntary marriage and amicable cohabitation between the parties in matrimonial disputes outweigh the need to pursue criminal proceedings to their logical end. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. The court set aside the lower court judgment and quashed all criminal proceedings against the appellant. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. When may a High Court exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial matters?
A High Court may quash criminal proceedings when the parties have reached a voluntary reconciliation, such as marriage, and the continuation of the litigation would result in unnecessary harassment or be considered an abuse of the court's process. (Para 6 , 8 )
7. Does a subsequent marriage between the parties invalidate the need to prosecute alleged offences committed at the time of initial elopement?
If the parties have entered into a consensual marital relationship and are residing together happily, the court may determine that the social welfare and interest of the parties justify terminating criminal proceedings, even if the initial allegations involved statutory offences. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
JUDGMENT
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Leave granted.
Aim of all legal proceedings is to arrive at justice, a meaningful and substantive. In some cases, the justice is done by bringing home the outcome in accordance with law, whereas in some matters, the action in law would deserve to be halted soon and terminated discontinuing the process, yielding to the legitimate demand of facts and warrant of circumstances.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran along with learned advocate-on-record Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay appearing for the appellants and learned counsel Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat along with learned advocate-on-record Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat for the respondents.
2.1 Ayyub Malik-appellant No.1 herein and Shahzadi-appellant No.2 herein, who are husband and wife, have filed this appeal addressing the challenge to judgment and order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, whereby the High Court dismissed Criminal Misc. Application No.566 of 2021 filed by appellant No.1, which was an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Hereinafter, “Cr.PC.”] seeking to quash the charge-sheet, summoning order and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.10 of 2021.
3. First Information Report [Hereinafter, “FIR”] No.0239 of 2020 came to filed on 01.06.2020 at Gangnahar Police Station, Haridwar by the complainant-respondent No.2 herein, who happens to be the father of appellant No.2. The complainant’s case in the FIR was that his daughter named Shehzadi-appellant No.2 whose age was stated to be 17 years, went missing from the house on 24.05.2020 at around 6 o’clock. Despite strenuous search, the daughter was not found. The complainant stated that he was informed by one Vaseen Sakur that he saw Shehzadi going with Ayyub Malik-appellant No.1 of village Saliyar. It was alleged in the FIR that appellant No.1 enticed the daughter of the complainant and took her away.
3.1 The Competent Court took cognizance on 07.01.2021 and appellant No.1 was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 368, 376(2)(d) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Hereinafter, “ IPC ”] as well as under Sections 5 (8) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Hereinafter, “POCSO Act”]. The said FIR resulted into filing of Criminal Case No.10 of 2021 registered with the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Haridwar [Hereinafter, “trial court”].
3.2 Appellant No.1 filed Criminal Misc. Application No.566 of 2021 before the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. seeking to get the said criminal proceedings quashed.
3.3 What was submitted before the High Court by appellant No.1 was inter-alia that he and the daughter of respondent No.2, that is the complainant, had married on 29.05.2020, before lodging of the FIR on 01.06.2020. The High Court reasoned that since the State had stated in its counter affidavit that the victim was minor at the time of alleged incident and that the submissions raised on behalf of the applicant could not be considered without leading of evidence, refused to quash the proceedings.
3.4 Calling in question the judgment and order of the High Court, the present appeal has been preferred by appellant Nos.1 and 2 jointly. It is the case of both the appellants that both of them were in relationship of love with each other since long. It was stated that as there was an opposition from their family members, appellant Nos.1 and 2 ran away from their house and got married on 25.09.2020 as per the Muslim rites and rituals. It was stated that the marriage was performed before a Kazi, pursuant to which a marriage certificate dated 25.09.2020 was also issued. It was next stated that appellant Nos.1 and 2 were major in age on the date of contracting of marriage, as the date of birth of appellant No.2 is 28.05.2000. In the appeal before this Court, both the appellants affirmed their separate affidavits in support of their case, making joint pr
